Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Should we allow ACK-only packets to be declared lost? (#3451)

ianswett <> Fri, 21 February 2020 14:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9A1B1200F9 for <>; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 06:09:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.382
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.382 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZaZ3pXi8hGQa for <>; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 06:09:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E5AC120819 for <>; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 06:09:40 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 06:09:39 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1582294179; bh=JT84jw9jZTu9f5ZeXPH3vr079qucM/i7GJz5Pe3SdXk=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=YRCYzPOol+cFBWU2G6hSwpRKQJVjB//+6TMjO38/Cr+5cymI8MJ5ZM6fpYLfPWSxr sOjik++EUFxuz2kqQ8RYf/ICf58NeEZZVmojVDF1pcYq6BlFXT+LIhfToRwfdF5Rm/ ksTribn3v8dDrESj9pFK/SpK6s/n/c86Ny61EGe4=
From: ianswett <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3451/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Should we allow ACK-only packets to be declared lost? (#3451)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e4fe4a35f937_642f3f88be0cd95c43531"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ianswett
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 14:09:43 -0000

@igorlord The reason it's a SHOULD is both because it's not designed to be required for QUIC to function correctly and because of the case when no ACK frame is sent prior to a connection close.

The only advantages I can think of would arise in extremely simple implementations, such as those which only track 1 ack range.  In that case, a receiver which received an ACK-only packet and then an ack-eliciting packet with a gap between the two would want to only acknowledge the ack-eliciting packet.  

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: